A few nits to pick: David Tenser wrote: > I asked the very same question last week, and this is mconnor's response: > > "MPL tri-license by definition. Good point, since CC-by-SA 3.0 is also > incompatible with our code licenses (which is why we don't use them for > MDC etc).
To be precise, MDC uses CC-BY-SA 2.5 or later for all the text content, and the MIT license for code. > We probably should do some outreach to get people to agree. > Probably can do a bit of bonsai scripting to get the list of individuals > who've committed content. That won't solve the problem completely, because often person B checks in person A's patch. You have to look in Bugzilla and checkin comments too, at the least. Relicensing is time-consuming and messy. What advantage do we get from doing it? If we are going to relicense, please ask for CC-BY-SA 3.0 _or_later_ rather than just 3.0. Makes things much more future-proof. > In the meantime, anything without relicensing > permission should be labeled as trilicense for now. (FSF's copyright > assignment makes this stuff so much easier.) True, but it discourages contributions to an unknown but almost certainly non-zero extent. > Anything contributed by > moco employees can be relicened in whatever way we see fit, since MoCo > owns the copyright." If I remember correctly, MoFo actually owns the copyrights to MoCo work. But the consequences are the same :-) Gerv _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
